Why rangers don't suck

[knottyb0y]

There are no threads that are entitled "Why Necro's don't suck"... Just sayin'

[Flunklesnarkin]

rangers suck because they don't use arrows.. none that i have grouped with D:

[Grizzin]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then you missed my subtle, but frequent points. I don't speak in absolutes. Things aren't either/or. Some of what you say is true. Some of what I say is true. Don't think in black/white or on/off terms.

I was actually referring to the OP, with his talk of a Ranger being the best viable tank, in a specific situation of Cleric mana not being an issue. I speak in absolutes and black/white terms on Ranger functionality because in the current timeline of whats being emulated, what I stated is indisputable fact. That is the literal definition of a Jack-of-all-Trades. However...

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(Most importantly, an exp penalty doesn't make sense if being a hybrid is the reason. When I play any game out there and distribute my points evenly, that's within the rules and no exp penalty is needed.)

You still fail to grasp the point I was making, that regardless of the reasoning behind why you feel Ranger's should not have an Exp penalty, this server is not functioning on logical reasoning. It is emulating classic EverQuest, wherein Hybrids still retained their Exp penalty. It's not about whether or not it makes sense, it's about the fact that in Classic -> Whatever Expansion that finally dropped Exp Penalties, they existed in this timeline, thus, we have them. The developers may not even agree with Exp penalties, but the fact remains that as a server that is emulating classic EverQuest, you must adhear to every classic aspect, including Exp penalties.

True, eventually they did create an environment where every class was able to solo and group on a roughly even level, but again I say to you, this is not that environment. Discussing why we can or why we can't do so on this server is pretty pointless.

I get the feeling that you did not understand that I was more or less agreeing with you, and just want to use this as an opportunity to verbosely speak on your knowledge of Rangers; in which case, carry on. I would just like to again point out the futility in it all.

Ranger's had a lot of things wrong with them in the initial 3 expansions - down the line, they fixed that. However, we are not down that line yet, nor will this server ever be. If you are playing a Ranger now, you are, like you said, accepting the consequences of your choices.

[koros]

What class can act as a better tank than a ranger assuming mana isn't constrained?

[Grizzin]

An actual tank, for one. I know it sounds great on paper for a Cleric or whatever to not have to CH a Ranger over and over, but it's indisputable that actual plate wearing classes mitigate damage at a better rate than a Ranger ever could, and I promise you any healer is always going to prefer having an actual tank over a Ranger tank.

For one, tank classes mitigation abilities have higher skill caps than a Ranger. Those skill caps go higher for a reason; it's not just for looks.

There's a reason you don't see many Ranger's main tanking groups out there, and why most healers prefer an actual plate wearing tank for the role.

I don't think it's fair to factor in some of our spell utility, especially our ability to root mobs (Many, many classes can perform this exact thing as easy as we can) in regards to who can be the better tank. :P Yes, we can pull higher dps than tank classes can, but pulling higher dps does not a better tank make. Fact is, though we may be able to pull more dps, we can not mitigate damage on the same level.

[koros]

Well sure, I meant if mana isn't constrained then you gain a benefit over having a ranger as a tank vs a pally or sk in terms of dps, and you gain benefit over a warrior by having better snap aggro.

[Flunklesnarkin]

Originally Posted by koros [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What class can act as a better tank than a ranger assuming mana isn't constrained?

unlimited mana


cleric aoe heals pull wicked aggro >_>

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Grizzin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was actually referring to the OP, with his talk of a Ranger being the best viable tank, in a specific situation of Cleric mana not being an issue. I speak in absolutes and black/white terms on Ranger functionality because in the current timeline of whats being emulated, what I stated is indisputable fact. That is the literal definition of a Jack-of-all-Trades. However...



You still fail to grasp the point I was making, that regardless of the reasoning behind why you feel Ranger's should not have an Exp penalty, this server is not functioning on logical reasoning. It is emulating classic EverQuest, wherein Hybrids still retained their Exp penalty. It's not about whether or not it makes sense, it's about the fact that in Classic -> Whatever Expansion that finally dropped Exp Penalties, they existed in this timeline, thus, we have them. The developers may not even agree with Exp penalties, but the fact remains that as a server that is emulating classic EverQuest, you must adhear to every classic aspect, including Exp penalties.

True, eventually they did create an environment where every class was able to solo and group on a roughly even level, but again I say to you, this is not that environment. Discussing why we can or why we can't do so on this server is pretty pointless.

I get the feeling that you did not understand that I was more or less agreeing with you, and just want to use this as an opportunity to verbosely speak on your knowledge of Rangers; in which case, carry on. I would just like to again point out the futility in it all.

Ranger's had a lot of things wrong with them in the initial 3 expansions - down the line, they fixed that. However, we are not down that line yet, nor will this server ever be. If you are playing a Ranger now, you are, like you said, accepting the consequences of your choices.

Then get what I'm saying and listen carefully... (sorry if i repeat myself or skip things you said)

Jack-of-all-trades != Overpowered. (see that?) You make it sound as though a jack-of-all-trades scheme will always demand an exp penalty or a negative penalty to compensate. But this is not true. If you have 10 points and 5 abilities, it doesn't matter if you put 10 of them in one ability or 2 of them in each - neither choice would be overpowering or require an exp penalty. But an exp penalty did and does exist, so why?

If what we see on p1999 truly is an example of jack-of-all-trades then an exp penalty would be completely unnecessary. It wouldn't be needed and it wouldn't be needed back then when Verant added it. It's my contention that Verant did not add an exp penalty for no reason at all. They might not have been top of the line professionals, but they would have at least had some solid reasoning for it. I say that they added it because rangers/hybrids were overpowered. Furthermore, my argument goes that rangers were overpowered because players could not accept hard choices (true jack-of-all-trades schemes) or that they simply were looking for more diverse game-play that they couldn't find in a simpler class like a warrior but got stuck with this jack-of-all-trades sh**. Verant (and SOE) did not like exp penalties to begin with, nor did they like having some classes be overpowered. When a class is overpowered, it tends to create conflict. Look at the jedi class in SWG, look at how long that lasted? Overpowered classes stick out and become the targets of scorn. So Verant/SOE slowly cut away the jack-of-all-trades branches (because most players couldn't cope with the consequences), and removed the exp penalty as well. This allowed them to avoid overpowering anybody.

But in all this I can't help but think it's the boring-ness of the gameplay that might play a role. To skip past that and to focus only on players not being able to cope with consequences would miss a huge opportunity to satisfy this portion of the player population that likes jack-of-all-trades solely for the larger toolset. Developers just need to make gameplay that's more satisfying and diverse and doesn't quickly grow stale. Giving a class autoattack and extremely high strength does -not- make that class good gameplay! Gameplay is about making choices and about diversity and about attaining your goals. Empty classes are bad gameplay. The fact that most players don't like hard choices is just a distraction. Understanding this point could be very important.

[sbvera13]

Originally Posted by Grizzin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All the utility a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All of the dps a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All the tanking a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.

But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime. Given this, 40% split 6 ways, aka 5%, is not a loss at all but will be a net gain.

If your rangers don't do this, they suck, and go ahead and kick em to the curb. But don't blame the class and assume that we all are a drain.

I wouldn't say we're shunned really; 90% of the bad things said about our class are in jest

I'm rerolling SK because I hit 22 and can't get groups anymore. It's a real problem, not a jest.

[Kender]

Originally Posted by sbvera13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime.

i lol'd